Posted on 03/09/2007 9:39:24 PM PST by Caravaggio
In the face of modern challenges to the Faith, Catholics who have a high profile in media, culture and government have a very grave responsibility to witness it correctly; otherwise, they will be held accountable in heaven for their anti-witness which affects the faith of millions.
For example, last Friday Sean Hannity took a few moments out of his afternoon radio show to make an apology. When I heard that the rather brash Hannity was actually going to apologize for something I was interested to find out what that would be. At first he sounded very sincere in saying we have to take responsibility for our mistakes. Fine so far. Then he went on to tell his hearers that he had taken two bites of a chicken sandwich that day because he had been traveling and literally forgot it was a Friday of Lent. He stopped eating it when he realized it was a Friday, but he used the opportunity on the show to make a fairly big deal about the "eat meat on Friday and you can go to hell" issue.
Well, even though he claims to be a "good Catholic," Hannity is hardly a credible commentator on Catholic matters. The chicken sandwich scandal was fairly trivial in the overall scheme of his show, but it said much more about the depth of his faith than anything else. I suspect that a great number of Catholics live their faith in the same way—rule-bound and juvenile—but we need something better from a public "Catholic" like Hannity. We need a vibrant witness of someone who knows and embraces his Faith as deeply as he articulates his political passions.
(Excerpt) Read more at hli.org ...
Interesting vision, any more details on the web?
Would love to read them...
Thanks & God Bless!!!
"Vatican II blew this all up, it used to be every FRIDAY...."
Let's examine what really changed and why.
DAYS OF PENANCE (Emphases added)
Can. 1249 All Christ's faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity, and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which the following canons prescribe.
Can. 1250 The days and times of penance for the universal Church are each Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.
Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
Can. 1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.
Can. 1253 The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.
(and this is what the U.S. Bishops did - but the universal law is still abstinence on Fridays with those exceptions allowed in the above canon)
"On Penance and Abstinence" issued by the NCCB on 18 Nov 1966. It contains a profound meditation on the meaning of the practice. While this document formally relaxed the rules on meatless Fridays - it clearly states why.
On Penance and Abstinence wrote:
Among the works of voluntary self-denial and personal penance which we especially commend to our people for the future observance of Friday, even though we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence as binging under pain of sin, as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday, we give first place to abstinence from flesh meat. We do so in the hope that the Catholic community will ordinarily continue to abstain from meat by free choice as formerly we did in obedience to Church law. Our expectation is based on the following considerations:
a. We shall thus freely and out of love for Christ Crucified show our solidarity with the generations of believers to whom this practice frequently became, expecially in times of persecution and of great poverty, no mean evidence of fidelity in Christ and his Church.
b. We shall thus also remind ourselves that as Christians, although immersed in the world and sharing its life, we must preserve a saving and necessary difference from the spirit of the world. Our deliberate, personal abstinence from meat, more especially because no longer required by law, will be an outward sign of inward spiritual values that we cherish.
The document later on makes one other vital point:
On Penance and Abstinence wrote:
Perhaps we should warn those who decide to keep the Friday abstinence for reasons of personal piety and special love that they must not pass judgment on those who elect to substitute other penitential observances.
Oh, how did they think? I don't think you can give a general answer, because there isn't one! Speaking of general, here's a letter from time of the Founders that was written by a general.
From To The Roman Catholics of the United States of America
...I presume that your fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their Revolution, and the establishment of their government; or the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed.
I thank you, gentlemen, for your kind concern for me. While my life and my health shall continue, in whatever situation I may be, it shall be my constant endeavour to justify the favourable sentiments which you are pleased to express of my conduct. And may the members of your society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.
-G.[eorge] Washington, March 15, 1790
Who says he doesn't? See my post #41 for an example.
Oh yeah? How about the beam in your eye? Attributing bad motives to others when you can't be sure of them is a sin.
I thought the priest came off like a total ass and precisely the type to turn people away from church.
Conversely, Alan's "you guys need a Jew to step in here.." comment is the only thing he's ever said that I could agree with.
What religion are you?
Your post is absurd. Fr. Euteneuer has gone after these politicians as well as bishops who condone them. Sean Hannity did not just look like a fool but he displayed himself as a rude juvenile of thought.
Tribemike,
Youare absolutely correct that intentionally divorcing conjugal relations from the procreation of children is a sin. What you are not acknowledging is that when a couple uses NFP for legitimate reasons such as a grave health concern, they are in no way resisting God's ability and perogative to create life. They remain open to life in the act of marriage, but for serious reasons abstain during the days on which conception is most likely to occur. Couples using NFP take no action to prevent conception when they are intimate. NFP does not attempt to alter the unitive and procreative nature of sex; contraception works to make each sexual act infertile, deliberately eliminating its procreative potential.
While NFP can certainly be abused--and the Church is very clear that it should not be used for reasons of convenience or out of a desire to avoid children-- its mechanism of abstinence is conceptually and practically opposed to contraception.
Would you argue that chaste unmarried people are practicing birth control because their abstinence causes them to "avoid pregnancy?"
He wants to give the impression he isn't by criticizing those in the GOP when they betray conservatives. But, what good is doing that when he is encouraging his audience to vote for RINOs and liberal Republicans whose nature it is to betray conservatism?
If it wasn't for his opposition to the Harriet Miers nomination, I'd completely give up on him. That was a principled stance. But, he has all but destroyed that image by stating he'd support a liberal like Giuliani.
LOL!!! Don't Baptists believe in Lent? Why not?
That's not true.
Tell me more about Fr. Euteneur!! he sounds great!
And, sadly, Sean responded to the Father's attempt to remove the plank from his eye by taking a Bible verse out-of-context and using as non-believers do to deflect criticism from their sin.
Sometimes, I honestly believe if Stalin were running as a Republican and little more conservative than Hitler, who was running as a Democrat, that Sean would suggest his audience vote for Stalin.
How is any of that any worse than pledging one's support for a Republican like Rudolph Giuliani, who is every bit as pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and as much an adulterer as those Democrats you just mentioned?
Ol' Sparky: How is any of that any worse than pledging one's support for a Republican like Rudolph Giuliani, who is every bit as pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and as much an adulterer as those Democrats you just mentioned?
You're right on the mark, Ol' Sparky. The fact that he defends a partisan, Catholic-In-Name-Only hack like Sean Hannity and attacks an orthodox Catholic priest like Fr. Euteneur by attributing bad motives to him (that he isn't sure of) tells me all I need to know about him. Fr. Euteneuer has gone after huge targets like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Johnson and Johnson, Nancy Pelosi, and others, not just in print, but in public.
You owe me a keyboard, you, you, you "f-word"!
That's the funniest retort I've heard all week!
Something tells me that you also liked Sam Kinison, too! ;^)
I was shocked at the rudeness and disrespect shown by Hannity toward this fine priest. I could not believe this was happening on a supposedly conservative network. I have been unhappy with Hannity's hectoring, filibustering style (even if I agree with his positions on many issues) for some time now, but this was the straw that broke the camel's back, as far as I am concerned. I will never voluntarily listen to that individual again and will be reluctant to watch Fox (or is it Pravda?) again.
Also note to Fr. Jonathan Morris, LC: you may wish to consider whether appearing on that show in future would show a lack of solidarity with Fr. Euteneuer.
Hannity is way more orthodox than Eutenhaur.
Your demi-god Eutenhaur is the typical Vatican II emasculated priesty boy who sings Kumbaya and performs clown masses. He probably has never said the Tridentine Rite and he is likely homosexual.
Cuty-Euty hasn't gone after anyone. Has he been dragged away from abortion clinics like Randall Terry? Hardly. He has this "brand" and his little website and his smug "Natural Planning" system.
Get a grip on this. His "Natural Planning" is not "Natural" at all. It is based on the most intense science, depends on taking temperatures, charting, significant effort all to AVOID pregnancy. It probably is more effective than condems which he hypocritically condems.
Say everyone were practicing the pink-padre's natural planning nonsense. What would the outcomme be? Fertility rates like Italy and Spain, that's what. Have you read Pat Buchanan's "Death of the West"? Catholic countries are going out of existence giving way to Muslims.
In the meantime, Father insipid Eutenhaur is probably on the bandwagon to cannonize the apostate John Paul II, he of syncretist Assisi fame as he does his clown masses and runs around defiling the blessed sacrament with women crawling all over the sanctuary.
He is a hypocrite of the worst kind. He recommends having no children and disobeys Gods command to multiply. He is a phony and a coward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.